Christine Weirich Paine1,2, Veena V Goel3,4,5,6, Elizabeth Ely7, Christopher D Stave8, Shannon Stemler1, Miriam Zander1, Christopher P Bonafide1,9,10,11. 1. Division of General Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. PolicyLab, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 4. Division of Systems Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 5. Department of Clinical Informatics, Stanford Children's Health, Stanford, California. 6. Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Stanford, Palo Alto, California. 7. Center for Pediatric Nursing Research and Evidence-Based Practice, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 8. Lane Medical Library, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 9. Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 10. Center for Pediatric Clinical Effectiveness, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 11. Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alarm fatigue from frequent nonactionable physiologic monitor alarms is frequently named as a threat to patient safety. PURPOSE: To critically examine the available literature relevant to alarm fatigue. DATA SOURCES: Articles published in English, Spanish, or French between January 1980 and April 2015 indexed in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTION: Articles focused on hospital physiologic monitor alarms addressing any of the following: (1) the proportion of alarms that are actionable, (2) the relationship between alarm exposure and nurse response time, and (3) the effectiveness of interventions in reducing alarm frequency. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data on setting, collection methods, proportion of alarms determined to be actionable, nurse response time, and associations between interventions and alarm rates. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our search produced 24 observational studies focused on alarm characteristics and response time and 8 studies evaluating interventions. Actionable alarm proportion ranged from <1% to 36% across a range of hospital settings. Two studies showed relationships between high alarm exposure and longer nurse response time. Most intervention studies included multiple components implemented simultaneously. Although studies varied widely, and many had high risk of bias, promising but still unproven interventions include widening alarm parameters, instituting alarm delays, and using disposable electrocardiographic wires or frequently changed electrocardiographic electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: Physiologic monitor alarms are commonly nonactionable, and evidence supporting the concept of alarm fatigue is emerging. Several interventions have the potential to reduce alarms safely, but more rigorously designed studies with attention to possible unintended consequences are needed.
BACKGROUND:Alarm fatigue from frequent nonactionable physiologic monitor alarms is frequently named as a threat to patient safety. PURPOSE: To critically examine the available literature relevant to alarm fatigue. DATA SOURCES: Articles published in English, Spanish, or French between January 1980 and April 2015 indexed in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTION: Articles focused on hospital physiologic monitor alarms addressing any of the following: (1) the proportion of alarms that are actionable, (2) the relationship between alarm exposure and nurse response time, and (3) the effectiveness of interventions in reducing alarm frequency. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data on setting, collection methods, proportion of alarms determined to be actionable, nurse response time, and associations between interventions and alarm rates. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our search produced 24 observational studies focused on alarm characteristics and response time and 8 studies evaluating interventions. Actionable alarm proportion ranged from <1% to 36% across a range of hospital settings. Two studies showed relationships between high alarm exposure and longer nurse response time. Most intervention studies included multiple components implemented simultaneously. Although studies varied widely, and many had high risk of bias, promising but still unproven interventions include widening alarm parameters, instituting alarm delays, and using disposable electrocardiographic wires or frequently changed electrocardiographic electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: Physiologic monitor alarms are commonly nonactionable, and evidence supporting the concept of alarm fatigue is emerging. Several interventions have the potential to reduce alarms safely, but more rigorously designed studies with attention to possible unintended consequences are needed.
Authors: Linda B Talley; Jeffrey Hooper; Brian Jacobs; Cathie Guzzetta; Robert McCarter; Anne Sill; Sherry Cain; Sally L Wilson Journal: Biomed Instrum Technol Date: 2011
Authors: Deborah A Whalen; Patricia M Covelle; James C Piepenbrink; Karen L Villanova; Charlotte L Cuneo; Eric H Awtry Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2014 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Catherine E Sharoky; Niels D Martin; Brian P Smith; Jose L Pascual; Lewis J Kaplan; Patrick M Reilly; Daniel N Holena Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Benjamin Vandendriessche; Mustafa Abas; Thomas E Dick; Kenneth A Loparo; Frank J Jacono Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Amanda C Schondelmeyer; Nancy M Daraiseh; Brittany Allison; Cindi Acree; Allison M Loechtenfeldt; Kristen M Timmons; Colleen Mangeot; Patrick W Brady Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Emily S Patterson; Chris Hritz; Liya Gebru; Kashvi Patel; Todd Yamokoski; Susan D Moffatt-Bruce Journal: Proc Int Symp Hum Factors Ergon Healthc Date: 2018-06-29
Authors: Marilyn Hravnak; Tiffany Pellathy; Lujie Chen; Artur Dubrawski; Anthony Wertz; Gilles Clermont; Michael R Pinsky Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2018-07-29 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Amanda C Schondelmeyer; Patrick W Brady; Veena V Goel; Maria Cvach; Nancy Blake; Colleen Mangeot; Christopher P Bonafide Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Chathuri Daluwatte; Jose Vicente; Loriano Galeotti; Lars Johannesen; David G Strauss; Christopher G Scully Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 1.438